Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jeff_Brauer on August 13, 2016, 03:48:08 PM
-
Had this discussion the other day, when someone told me any course needed Par 72 and back tees at 7000 Yards to attract attention for proper marketing. Although we have all heard this at some point over the years, I Googled it and only found one article - mine from Golf Industry ten years back wondering why, and if it was still necessary.
Here is a link to my article......
http://www.golfcourseindustry.com/article/gci-0510-jeffrey-brauer-design-concepts/
I know Fazio had many successful high end courses without going over 7K. I know Doak and CC try in many cases to keep them under 7K. I know some of the top 100 are (or were) under 7K. I was told it didn't matter if it was a signature name, but did otherwise......and a quick search does show a lot of courses mention that 7000 yards in the first line of their advertising. So, maybe it does still matter?
Frankly, from a design standpoint, I realize that costs are going up faster than budgets in this time frame. Building 7 to 7200 yards for the 1% who play them is one way to run the budget up 4-5% over a 6800 Yard course, thus the desire to keep a project I am renovating/partially re-routing under budget control. There will be few great players coming out to see this, I am sure. Not to mention, today, 7K is sort of an in between yardage, not quite long enough for the big boys, too long for everyone else. If I go over 7, I want to get to about 7200.....
All I am really asking is, are there any stats or evidence out there to suggest that even middle tee players want 7K back tees, even if they will just be a rumor to them?
I figure the preference for many here is to say screw the 7K, but are there any of you who can recall scorecard yardage affecting their decision to drive a bit out of town and play a new or newly renovated golf course?
Finally, for the few marketing pros who come on here, can you comment on your experience? For those who read only, a private email to me to convey thoughts would be interesting.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts, pro or con 7000 yards.
-
Jeff,
Great thread. I used to overlook short yardages in my younger days. I now do not discriminate either way, very much enjoyed a 5600 yard track in northern michigan this summer, but I also enjoy a 7100 yard tracks as well. What I don't understand is, if 1-3% play the tips over 7,000, don't underground irrigate it. Instead make the tee box rough around the edges, you can also grow fescue in between the next tee box. I've seen this done at some places and I think it makes the rise in maint 4-5% number fall on its face. The problem is too much streamlining. Fairways and greens should get most attention. The amount of money we spend on hazards aka bunkers is ridiculous in the US.
-
No Jeff, the yardage has never been a factor I consider in deciding whether or not to check out a course. I am influenced by whose name is on it, pictures I see, and the recommendations of the people whose taste I trust. I could care less about the par or the yardage.
-
Ben,
Thanks. As to back tees, when asked to design a 7200+ course, I do exactly that. Had one client who had me build them 15 x 15 feet - exactly 3 mower passes each way, although if there was only one way in and out, it might have been 3 by 4 passes, or 15 x 20. That is a small tee!
And, we try to use the smallest heads possible and leave the edges native or fescue, as you suggest, and allow a native carry of up to 180 yards from back there, if we can angle the tee. One study shows that the typical tee irrigation in the Midwest sprinkles over an acre, which can be cut back a lot if only the more forward tees don't have a native carry. That said, I saw one study where almost 1 in 4 tee shots is muffed somehow. And, you would think the back tee carry would be 200 yards, but I recall Jim Colbert trying that carry out during design of Colbert Hills in a north wind and he couldn't make it (none of the golf team could either that day) so we dragged it back 20 yards!
-
Jeff, before my golf club atlas days, both yardage and slope (the higher the better) were signs of likely quality. Under about 6200 yards and there was zero chance I would play there. Zero.
-
Mark,
I understand that 6200, of course. Wondering more about 6650-6850 as the max yardage for a course.
Thanks, and I agree. I guess there is still something to at least a "regulation" if not "championship course, and I would view that as at least 6650 or so.
I guess the other part of this is how hung up are folks on par 72? Again, this crowd, no. But I do hear it a lot from clients as "standard" not to be deviated from. Again, 70 or 71 wouldn't bother me, although I would wonder about a par 69. On a related note, Stanley Thompson was a big proponent of the fifth par 3, which I have proposed a few times, to a) save land and cost but more b) because average golfers love the par 3 holes and would find the course more fun. And, my 6-6-6 routing here in DFW has lots of fan and gets lots of play. Again, making me wonder why clients love that par 72 and 7K so much.
-
I would put the "enough" number at about 6600 yards for back tees and course rating slightly above par to meet the totally unjustified "is it hard enough" test. Less than that and you have to explain it.
For me, I just want a course around 6300-6500 yards and course rating within one stroke of par.
-
Does anyone other than the designer/constructor (and maybe the maintenance crew) ever measure the length of each hole?
And if they do, on what basis is it done, eg rear of back tee to front/middle/rear of green, inside/outside/middle fairway line of holes with fairways that curve. Must be a few different methods of measurement so who is to say what is or isn't actually 7,000 yds?
Seems like scope for smoke and mirrors and snake oil salesmen.
Atb
-
Jeff,
Mark nailed it in fewer words then I. I don't care about what par is, in fact usually par 72 JN courses lack much imagination to play. I think par should be determined after you figure out what the land gives you. I am more interested in the sum of the parts and what the land gives. I do like and notice C & C doing holes with extremes in yardages. For the tips playing a hole that 430 over and over again is boring, where a drive and pitch 340 hole and a 495 yard par 4 is much more fun. I also unlike on here don't think every par 5 needs to be hittable in 2. I have no problem with a par 69, if the land is 100 acres and gives the best product of interesting holes, then I will take it. In fact i would like to see more courses on 100-130 acres. The hell with them lawyers. You hit an errant shot and do not yell 4, month suspension.
-
I figure the preference for many here is to say screw the 7K, but are there any of you who can recall scorecard yardage affecting their decision to drive a bit out of town and play a new or newly renovated golf course?
I have never been enticed by high yardage/slope. In fact, the opposite is true. I have gone to play more than a few courses as much for their very short yardage as anything. In fact II, if the marketing bit was 7000+ yards championship course I am less likely to play the course. There are a ton of modernish courses I have never given a second look. Its really only in the past 15 years or so that I have paid attention to new modern courses.
Ciao
-
Jeff:
I don't know how many of my courses are under 7,000 yards -- I'd guess about half of them.
I do know that the two highest-rated ones are
Pacific Dunes - 6,633 yards, and
Barnbougle - 6,148 meters [+/- 6,720 yards]
Both are in windy places where the yardage doesn't matter so much, but both put the dagger to the idea that a course "has to be 7000 yards in order to attract attention for proper marketing." ::) And yes, I did deliberately hold back the yardage of both courses a bit to make this very point.
In the last ten years, I've found it harder and harder to stay under 7,000. We've built several courses at altitude, several where the client has some intention of hosting a big event, and a couple where the client is a strong golfer and insists on length. My old client at Beechtree built an extra tee after we left to take the course from just under 7k to just over. [A lot of good it did them!]
My dream is to convince a client to let me build a course that's only 6,300 yards from the tips and still interesting for the better player, whether the par is 72 or 68. I've talked with someone about the possibility recently, so maybe it will happen in a couple of years. I guarantee you it would draw a lot of attention as there will be a ton of naysayers lining up to prove me wrong!
Also, in case you missed it, there is a thread about North Berwick being a great course running here currently. I think North Berwick is still just 6,400 yards.
-
Jeff - one average golfer's perspective:
I don't need or want 7000+ yards; but when I read that a course is 7000+ from the back/black tees, I can make a pretty good guess that the blue tees will be set at about 6800 yards and the whites at 6500, two distances that I can and do enjoy playing from (especially the latter). I'm not someone who insists on hitting driver all the time, and in fact I don't even carry one anymore - using a very strong 3 wood instead; but I'm not the biggest fan of "short par 4s" nor do I enjoy hitting wedges and nine irons into most green (especially not every day) -- and so if I course is under, say, 6000 yards I'm going to be hesitant about playing it unless I know that the topography is both interesting and challenging. And, since I'm also not a big fan of most Par 5s, the best marketing for this average golfer would be something like a 6850 yard Par 70 course -- on which I'd play my majority of rounds from the blue tees at 6500 or so. And I can't think of anyone I've played golf with (average golfers all, give or take a few strokes) who'd have a much different view.
Peter
-
Thomas,
Well, the USGA does have a prescribed method of measuring, and its from center of each tee to center of green, or as close as you can approximate given the free form of each. The hardest part, I think, is doglegs. I think they say to measure out to the center of the fairway where it bends, then to the green from there. However, on many old courses where the dogleg is at 200 yards and many players play well past it, it would be hard to pick a point. Most architects use something like 850 feet off the center of the back tee for the "turn point" when developing scorecards, but the final measurements are always different.
And, in some cases, the course will measure at least the back tees 6 foot off the back edge, if it gets them over whatever hundred yard marker they can exceed, so again, some folks in the biz still think it matters. And some measure all tees from near the back to stretch it out, on the theory that golfers love beating their score on a challenge, i.e., they feel good shooting a low number on a long course, believing they really played well that day, when in reality, they are playing much shorter than the advertised yardage. But, we digress.
The thing about distance is I see golfers gravitating to what they feel comfortable playing, like Peter. I like distances where I hit a few long irons, mostly mid irons and some short ones. I would feel its too easy on a short course where I was hitting all short irons. I think the general rule is a 5 iron is 2/3 your tee shot length, so a course should be say, 18 tee shots at 240 and 18 approaches at 160, average 36 shots, or about 6480 yards. And, I do see players gravitate to those distances more and more.
And, I see some evidence of developers wanting to take out back tees in favor of other community uses, like dog parks, veggie gardens, tot lots, etc. However, that is far from universal, and varies the question somewhat from what do golfers like to what sells houses in a community.
Thanks again for view points.
-
And, since I'm also not a big fan of most Par 5s, the best marketing for this average golfer would be something like a 6850 yard Par 70 course -- on which I'd play my majority of rounds from the blue tees at 6500 or so.
That would be a much more difficult test of golf than I think you expect. Each stroke to par is the equivalent of an extra 150-175 yards on the scorecard ... so a 6850 yard par 70 course plays like a 7200-yard par-72.
The Loop at Forest Dunes is about 6700 yards from the back and 6100 yards from the front, but at par 70, it's a pretty tough course. I haven't even heard of someone posting a good number from the back tees ... the middle tees have been plenty for guests so far.
-
Tom,
throw the yardage out the window if one is getting 50+ yards of roll. The other track they water the hell out of the fairways the day I played it. When you open your sub 6200 yard track, Jkava and I will unveil our 9,000 yard track ;) :o
Peter,
You wouldn't like WPJ tracks, he was fond of 5 par 5's on many of his courses, Sylvania CC original Park routing had 7 par 5's, Holy Toledo. ;D :o
-
This concept seems really similar to the signaling theory of education. Do we learn valuable things in school or does a college degree just signal that the person worked hard or is smart? For this question, does a 7,000 yard course mean it is better or just signal that there is a certain level of quality to be expected?
From the perspective of the average golfer, I think 7,000 yards on the card is a fairly reliable indicator that the course will be good enough (at least from the retail golfer's perspective). We on GCA would argue that they are looking at the wrong things, but from the average golfer's opinion of what makes a good course, looking for 7,000 on the card is probably a rational thing to do. There will probably be enough bunkers and water hazards to please their hearts.
I have no evidence that courses that hit 7,000 are better on average, but I can't think of too many bad ones. I fully agree that this number is arbitrary and 6,600 - 6,800 is great for a back tee. But people love round numbers and the tour has made 7,000 a mental "anchor" for yardages. That number will be as tough to overcome as it is meaningless.
-
Joe,
Thoughtful response, and I think my friend would agree that its a signal that many pick up on.
And some think, in the internet age where more golfers are introduced to a new (to them) course via the web, and have famously short attention spans (down from 17 minutes to 10 minutes in just a decade by some measurements.....and apparently even shorter during election cycles (Politicians count of our memory span being shorter than the lifespan of a fruit fly, apparently) a few pictures and 7,000 yards probably get the course over the first cut pretty easily.
If they don't have any word of mouth from reliable friends, maybe they start looking at other things as they explore diligently, like reviews, and what not.....or just pull out the credit card and figure its only five hours of my time.....who knows, really.
-
Thanks for the detailed explanation Jeff. I wonder what happens in other parts of the world?
There's an altitude effect on distance as well. To what extent is this taken into consideration in design and distance?
Atb
-
Altitude is taken into consideration in design, but not measurement.
I use the rule of thumb of a yard per yard plus or minus for uphill and down hill shots (actually works out to % uphill/downhill, like 3 yards over 300 is 1% gain or loss.
Forrest Richardson put a nice chart in his book regarding elevation effects. We know Denver, a mile high, adds 15% and you can probably divide evenly from sea level or so to figure your plus or minus in percent from your typical playing elevation.
-
Thanks in advance for any thoughts, pro or con 7000 yards.
I would take a look at what John Ashworth is doing with his marketing for: http://www.goathillpark.com
"For Shotmaking and Socializing"
I can't find yardage on the website, just that it is a "short course". I know it is under 6000 yards from playing there. Ashworth sold his brand to Taylor Made, and he now has a new clothing brand. Goathill seems to be a fun laboratory of golf+clothing for him, and it seems to be working very well.
-
I can't find yardage on the website, just that it is a "short course". I know it is under 6000 yards from playing there. Ashworth sold his brand to Taylor Made, and he now has a new clothing brand. Goathill seems to be a fun laboratory of golf+clothing for him, and it seems to be working very well.
Goat Hill is a weird little course. It was built in the 50's as a private, nine-hole club (!), but when that failed the city took it over, and a local golf pro jammed 18 holes into the space of nine. It is very tight in some places, and obviously there's not room to make it really long, yet there is some good golf there.
John used to play it regularly, and when the city started talking about selling it off and letting someone develop it [there was talk of a soccer stadium, which would have been interesting on the side of a hill], John fired up the locals into protesting it, and wound up taking over the lease to operate it. He seems to be having a great time with it, and is doing his best to turn "shortness" into an asset instead of a liability. I got a Goat Hill t-shirt in the mail Friday, for sponsoring his 100 Hole Hike there.
-
Yes I think it is still important to have a course at 7000 yards or more. It may not seem as important to this group, but it does not represent most golfers. When I tell people I played X course, many will ask either what is the slope or how long is it. To be honest, when I was younger I fell into the same trap. I was a low handicap in my thirties and forties. My home course was about 7100 yards and always played it back. Then I went to England and Played Rye. The only reason I played it was because it was in the top hundred in the world. It is under 6500 yards and par 68. I thought it would be little more than a pitch and putt. It turned out to be one of the most difficult courses I have ever seen. It was brilliant with some of the best par threes and par fours I know. Yet when I tell some guys about the course they don't really believe me.
-
From the perspective of the average golfer, I think 7,000 yards on the card is a fairly reliable indicator that the course will be good enough (at least from the retail golfer's perspective). We on GCA would argue that they are looking at the wrong things, but from the average golfer's opinion of what makes a good course, looking for 7,000 on the card is probably a rational thing to do. There will probably be enough bunkers and water hazards to please their hearts.
I have no evidence that courses that hit 7,000 are better on average, but I can't think of too many bad ones. I fully agree that this number is arbitrary and 6,600 - 6,800 is great for a back tee. But people love round numbers and the tour has made 7,000 a mental "anchor" for yardages. That number will be as tough to overcome as it is meaningless.
I agree with the idea of "signaling," and yet it signals all the wrong things -- you will lose enough golf balls to be happy?
The only positives would be if one assumes that a newer course is in better shape -- but many of these long courses are 50 years old, and fail that test -- or that modern designs are superior, and we all know that's a lie.
This could be easily solved in golf course architects pushed back against it and used their platform to invalidate the idea. If only they had an effective organization to discuss the topic and try to correct the problem ... but instead they would wind up writing a white paper on why "choice" is so important. >:(
Incidentally, I had the brainstorm the other day that the only way to get the good players to favor an equipment rollback would be to keep building shorter courses. If we built courses where their longer drives did them no good, and they had to lay up often, they would respond by favoring an equipment rollback so they could hit driver again [and regain their natural advantage]. The more architects play into the idea that courses have to be lengthened, the less chance there is that players will want the equipment rolled back.
-
I think having a 7k course and being able to say you have a Championship course are synonyms. At least that's what the non GCA.com owner and player think.
I'm told our new owner thinks balanced nines are highly preferable so he'll likely change our 35-37 that has five par 3s and five par 5s into even 36-36...and given our house-bound routing will all be done via pencil strokes on the scorecard. I suspect he'll still keep the back tees at 7088 yards.
-
If only they had an effective organization to discuss the topic and try to correct the problem ... but instead they would wind up writing a white paper on why "choice" is so important. >:(
I disagree completely and great change happens at the bottom up. Choice is important, Free To Choose. Let's not get ideological for there are market forces at play.
Incidentally, I had the brainstorm the other day that the only way to get the good players to favor an equipment rollback would be to keep building shorter courses. If we built courses where their longer drives did them no good, and they had to lay up often, they would respond by favoring an equipment rollback so they could hit driver again [and regain their natural advantage]. The more architects play into the idea that courses have to be lengthened, the less chance there is that players will want the equipment rolled back.
I disagree again, voluntarily getting a few clubs to play their championship flight with a rolled back ball and technology is how you get this ball rolling. The Ohio Golf Assoc tried it, and that is another way. Proper change happens from the ground up, not through Central planning from Far Hills. ;)
-
I agree with the idea of "signaling," and yet it signals all the wrong things -- you will lose enough golf balls to be happy?
The only positives would be if one assumes that a newer course is in better shape -- but many of these long courses are 50 years old, and fail that test -- or that modern designs are superior, and we all know that's a lie.
This could be easily solved in golf course architects pushed back against it and used their platform to invalidate the idea. If only they had an effective organization to discuss the topic and try to correct the problem ... but instead they would wind up writing a white paper on why "choice" is so important. >:(
Incidentally, I had the brainstorm the other day that the only way to get the good players to favor an equipment rollback would be to keep building shorter courses. If we built courses where their longer drives did them no good, and they had to lay up often, they would respond by favoring an equipment rollback so they could hit driver again [and regain their natural advantage]. The more architects play into the idea that courses have to be lengthened, the less chance there is that players will want the equipment rolled back.
I think the first line is right. The average golfer assessing the quality of a course expects to lose balls in unnecessarily penal water hazards. They are picturesque and will look great in pictures later. 7,000 yards does signal the wrong things as Tom mentions and we all know here. The more interesting question is how to change this attitude. It's well documented that the tour on TV does no help. I'll have to think more about building shorter courses, that's an interesting idea.
-
Incidentally, I had the brainstorm the other day that the only way to get the good players to favor an equipment rollback would be to keep building shorter courses. If we built courses where their longer drives did them no good, and they had to lay up often, they would respond by favoring an equipment rollback so they could hit driver again [and regain their natural advantage]. The more architects play into the idea that courses have to be lengthened, the less chance there is that players will want the equipment rolled back.
I disagree again, voluntarily getting a few clubs to play their championship flight with a rolled back ball and technology is how you get this ball rolling. The Ohio Golf Assoc tried it, and that is another way. Proper change happens from the ground up, not through Central planning from Far Hills. ;)
Ben:
Did you fail reading comprehension? Where did I say anything about the USGA above? I said that if architects chose not to build courses so long, low-handicap players would be arguing in favor of different golf balls, so their length meant something in competition.
I know there are some people who value long hitting over skill. If you are one of them, sorry to offend you, but try to understand what I'm saying, at least. The problem, anyway, is that too many people look up to the Tour and what they see on TV, and every single pro is on an equipment company's payroll, so not many are going to favor changing the status quo.
-
Ben:
Did you fail reading comprehension? No, but it never was a strong suit of mine. ''If only they had an effective organization''- They either means Golf Archies society or USGA is what I implied this meant. Where did I say anything about the USGA above?
I said that if architects chose not to build courses so long, low-handicap players would be arguing in favor of different golf balls, so their length meant something in competition. Tom, An Architect as you know has to take into account keeping the doors open when he leaves. Now if the the property is a 9 or 10 and on an ocean or destination golf then a short course would probably do okay. The average golfer loves the long ball. They pay the Bills.
I know there are some people who value long hitting over skill. If you are one of them, sorry to offend you, but try to understand what I'm saying, at least. I don't value long hitting over skill but I valued courses over 6600 yards when I was in high school and early 20's. You need to understand that I think of golf and golf sustainability different then you do and what the average golfer wants. The guy who pays the bills. I used to be amazed as a teenager at the Alabama golf trail for the had courses that were really long. I thought if I could break 75 on them I could play. That was narrow mindedness but that outlook is shared by enough people.
The problem, anyway, is that too many people look up to the Tour and what they see on TV, and every single pro is on an equipment company's payroll, so not many are going to favor changing the status quo.
Agree with this. If Cypress point had an exhibition with persimmons and a dialed back ball for $50 on a monday, there would be people selling their mother down the river to sign up. Certain courses hold the key to change. People like courses on Water.
-
Did you fail reading comprehension? No, but it never was a strong suit of mine. ''If only they had an effective organization''- They either means Golf Archies society or USGA is what I implied this meant.
I meant the ASGCA, of which Jeff Brauer [who started this thread] is a former president. This was from a paragraph that stated that golf course architects could help solve the problem, but they do not.
-
I have not read the other posts but YES Par 72 and 7000 Yards are the key numbers for marketing.
If you want to recruit members you will get more if you hit those numbers, anything lower it is more difficult however I think you need the 7000 to be made up by 3 or 4 tees 50-70 yards further back, so the real medal course is about 6700 yards par 72. Equally 6475 yards par 71 or 6250 yards par 70 lengths are the same strength of course relative to par.
The reality is that very few people want to play 7000 yards and you need to kid them by 300/400 yards as to what they are playing.
The other stigma is courses under 6000 yards, its a big minus to most people.
However, I think most courses are set up at around 6000 yards for normal play (even the 7000 yarders) and 6000 is probably the ideal length for enjoyment though people think they are playing 6400/6500.
-
...you need to kid them by 300/400 yards as to what they are playing.
Very astutely put. Smoke and mirrors. Lots of scope for this. 😊
Atb
-
I don't understand why this is even a discussion or question.
The answer is dependent on what you say Jeff - especially as an ASGCA past president - which is what Tom said.
Adding back tees may not make a significant difference to the budget but it has a big impact on the routing.
And if you need the real answer Tom also posted it here many years ago:
[size=0pt]Analysis of the Top 50 Golf Courses in the World
19 are par-72 courses
15 are par-71
16 are “others,” mostly 70 or 73[/size]
[size=0pt][/size]
[size=0pt]12 of the top 50 are less than 6800 yards from the back tees;
15 are between 6800 yards and 7000 yards;
23 can be stretched to 7000 yards for championship play.
[/size]
-
Analysis of the Top 50 Golf Courses in the World
19 are par-72 courses
15 are par-71
16 are “others,” mostly 70 or 73
[size=0pt]12 of the top 50 are less than 6800 yards from the back tees;
15 are between 6800 yards and 7000 yards;
23 can be stretched to 7000 yards for championship play.
[/size]
Mike:
I suspect many of those shorter courses have been stretched since that post, but not for marketing so much as they were convinced by the sport's governing bodies that they were falling behind. Look at what they did to Merion!
Mr. Dye told me in 1983 that the only way to get golfers on the right tees was to build them at 5800 yards, and then lie and say those tees were 6200 yards, otherwise they wouldn't play them.
It amazes me the same b.s. is necessary, 30 years later, but it's all because of the way bad courses are marketed. Why do we let them set the standard, instead of educating people about the truth?
Another interesting point: 7000 yards is meaningless in countries that use the metric system. Some have insisted on 6400 m or 6500 m as a standard ... some even go for 7000 m (!) ... but over 6000 meters is usually enough for those in Australia or Europe to think the course is just fine.
This even has an effect on individual holes ... in America not many clients would want me to build a par-4 under 300 yards, but I built four of them between St. Andrews Beach and Barnbougle and nobody said boo about it, because they measure in meters.
-
There is a serious divide so far as marketing goes. It is much more likely the new course on the block "has to be" 7000/72. That is far from the case for a ton of well established and respected courses. I talk to a ton of new members and none say the reason they joined was course yardage/par. In fact, the course is 6700 from the medal tees and a par of 71...not many people are clamouring for another 300 yards on the medal card and most members play the daily tees every chance they get. I think the 7000/72 mantra is a peceived wisdom that is rarely challenged even though there are tons of examples as to why it should be challenged.
Ciao
-
Sean's post got me thinking about intentions, actual instead of ostensible ones. The USGA has the "tee it forward" and "play nine" initiatives/marketing tools, but there is no "6800 yards is enough for everyone" equivalent. It's a no-brainer: so many stellar and/or famous courses to highlight in print and television ads, and so many golfing greats past and present ready to chime in on the joys and challenges of a 6800 yard course. It makes me wonder why the USGA hasn't been done it before. Oh, wait -- maybe it's because they don't *want* to do it. Why? I have no idea. But maybe, in some weird parallel to Col Kilgore's infamous "Charlie don't surf!" from Apocalypse Now, there's Col Davis in the background at Far Hills shouting "Pros don't get humiliated on 6800 yards!"
Peter
(By the way, is it just me or would Wallace Shawn be perfect to play Mike Davis in a movie? "My Dinner with Mike", set on the patio at NGLA...)
-
What if, for the "Good of the Game", the PGA/USGA/R&A decide that no golf tournament will play over 7,000 yds.
What incentive will there be for owners to build courses over that number?
Is this a way to skirt potential lawsuits with equipment manufacturers over bifurcation/tournament ball?
-
The difference between 7,000 yds and 6,800 yds is essentially 10 yds per hole, less than the variance between two different iron club shots for some players. Not a lot really and pretty much undetectable to most.
Atb
-
I will certainly say if I'm in an area where I know nothing about any course, don't have anyone to ask about quality and just look at a few local options, I'm more likely to default to the longer/higher course rating option (assuming I don't know the architects).
-
I was just putting the finishing touches on The Gourmet's Choice section of Volume 3 of The Confidential Guide, and noticed that, aside from the nine-hole Hooper Golf Club, 11 of our 17 selections are still UNDER 7,000 yards from the back tees. Those courses, which must all be doomed for marketing purposes:
Banff Springs
Cabot Links
Crystal Downs
Davenport CC
Garden City Golf Club
Lawsonia
Merion (East)
Myopia Hunt Club
Roaring Gap
Somerset Hills
Yale
Of course, as Sean notes, most are private clubs that aren't too worried about marketing to retail golfers. However Banff and Cabot surely have to market, and don't seem to be suffering.
-
It would be interesting to try and pair up 6500 yard courses and courses exceeding 7000 yards of similar quality in similar markets and see how their financials compare. Any comparison is difficult because of all of the unique factors that play into perceived value. I also suspect that the impact of such a comparison varies wildly by location. Nonetheless, I suppose an appraiser who knows golf could probably factor those sort of issues into the analysis, at least for a particular area.
Overall my impression is that the longer courses do better. Decent but short courses have struggled locally while long but mediocre courses seem to do better. Most of the Golden Age courses with room have added length to get close to 7000 yards and/or reduced par. Many of the courses here were par 73s originally so reducing par becomes an option.
-
And, since I'm also not a big fan of most Par 5s, the best marketing for this average golfer would be something like a 6850 yard Par 70 course -- on which I'd play my majority of rounds from the blue tees at 6500 or so.
That would be a much more difficult test of golf than I think you expect. Each stroke to par is the equivalent of an extra 150-175 yards on the scorecard ... so a 6850 yard par 70 course plays like a 7200-yard par-72.
The Loop at Forest Dunes is about 6700 yards from the back and 6100 yards from the front, but at par 70, it's a pretty tough course. I haven't even heard of someone posting a good number from the back tees ... the middle tees have been plenty for guests so far.
It also depends how you get there, because if you go from par 72 to 71 by adding a 5th par 3, it can be more like 200 - 250 in difference.
-
I was just putting the finishing touches on The Gourmet's Choice section of Volume 3 of The Confidential Guide, and noticed that, aside from the nine-hole Hooper Golf Club, 11 of our 17 selections are still UNDER 7,000 yards from the back tees. Those courses, which must all be doomed for marketing purposes:
Banff Springs
Cabot Links
Crystal Downs
Davenport CC
Garden City Golf Club
Lawsonia
Merion (East)
Myopia Hunt Club
Roaring Gap
Somerset Hills
Yale
Of course, as Sean notes, most are private clubs that aren't too worried about marketing to retail golfers. However Banff and Cabot surely have to market, and don't seem to be suffering.
How many of those tracks are on Land that is considered a 9 or 10? Lets not put courses built on an Ocean, lake, or in the Mountains as a fair comparison. Cabot and Pebble could be 6500 yards from the tips and are immune to length due to how great the land is. I hear the land ain't too bad at Crystal either.
-
Ben:
Most great [or very good] courses are located on good pieces of land.
If this 7,000-yard discussion is confined to courses on bad pieces of land, then you are just talking about how to market bad courses -- and who cares?
Although I still remember Dr. MacKenzie's advice on how to fix a bad hole: "Shorten it, and get it over with quicker."
-
We just use whatever yardage/ratings the golf association raters say they are. I guess they use the middle of the tee to the middle of the green standard. I suppose we could publicize whatever yardages we want. That seems sort of dishonest for folks assuming that yardages/ratings are a reasonable way to compare courses. Like everyone else here, we don’t, and use their numbers. Virtually no scratch or pro ever shoots the ratings for any tee, so we don’t worry about the challenge presented. I can’t remember the last time, if ever, we set up the course to play as difficult as possible for a competitive event. Perhaps for a state amateur some years ago. For example, our seldom used back tees are listed as 6807 yards. Setting the markers all the way back, they actually measure 7000+ yards. Given a fairly windy location in a canyon which causes the wind to swirl and eddy like a white water river, yardage is just part of the problem for a decent golfer to shoot a low score. For multi-day competitions our adjustments are mostly for fun, variety, and weather, not defending par or providing the sternest test possible.
We market ourselves as fun, walkable golf course in a unique landscape and don’t really give a hoot about other adjectives and measures.
-
If this 7,000-yard discussion is confined to courses on bad pieces of land, then you are just talking about how to market bad courses -- and who cares?
Owners of courses on "bad" land who can't afford to hire a "name" architect.
-
Anecdote. A friend of mine who's in his late-50s and a seven h.c. didn't want to play Prestwick (Scotland) on a visit a few years ago because "it was too short." (And he did not.) Now, I don't recall what tees visitors must play from, but the course is 6,551 from the medal tees, 6,908 from the championship, and 5,973 from the senior tees (per their current website). And to top it off, he is not an exceptionally long hitter -- his strengths are an exceptional short game and putting. This is a perfect example of the silliness you can get from otherwise quite intelligent people (PBK at a top tier college in his day).
-
Ben:
Most great [or very good] courses are located on good pieces of land.
If this 7,000-yard discussion is confined to courses on bad pieces of land, then you are just talking about how to market bad courses -- and who cares?
Most great or very good courses are 7000 yards or the equivalant strength, ie 6750 par 71, 6500 par 70. A quick search through the GB & I top 100 won't yield many shorties. Great or good golf courses still need good strong holes and plenty of them. It is easy for you to say who cares about courses on bad land, but all my courses have been on bad land, I get flat fields, a lot of golf courses have to be made. They still end up full of happy golfers. Not every course can be number 1 and the world needs ditch diggers too.
-
Adrian
I guess my main point is that when the main marketing push for a course is 7000/72 then it doesn't bode well because these are such superficial (I would actually argue meaningless and perhaps even negative measurements of quality) measurements of quality. I would be extremely disappointed if I invested in a course and the best that could be said of it was 7000/72.
Ciao
-
Sean - Everybody has different wants with golf courses. You played with your friends at Cumberwell, you liked the Orange nine and did not like the Blue, but your friends preferred the Blue. I like the same sort of courses as you. I spoke with a 1 handicapper this week he thought the Orange was horrendous, he said everyone in the county match hated it. The common denominator with that was good players, so kinda understandable but there is a deep market for golf courses with water in front of greens, good conditioning, fast flattish (normal) greens.
I think a lot of people think they want to play 7000 yard courses, hence the ....required for marketing. Reality it is too hard. Marketing a 7000 yard course is easier than 6800 or 6600 etc. As long as it has multiple tees it is going to suit a bigger portion of golfers, if you have a 'new' 5900 yarder you will not have the same percentage of customers because to quite a few will feel it is too short.
Separate subject bout time you popped down and played our bigger course, message me if you want to bring your three mates.
-
Out of interest with a 7,000/72 combo, in very general terms what would be the proportion (in %) of teeing areas for say the back men's, the men's white's, the men's yellow's and the reds?
Atb
-
Much of the comment on here seems to me to be in an Amercian context. Looking at it from a purely Scottish context and very much my own personal opinion, I don't think par 72, 7000 yards is "required" at all. In Scotland most private member clubs are relatively accessible, even the biggies, and therefore more or less compete with the few pay and play facilities for visitors. In that sense, they are marketed and for most clubs visitor revenue is an important component of their income.
While they all have websites that will tell you par and yardages, more important in any selection is established rep, type of course ie. links, parkland etc, cost and availability ie. travel distance and any restrictions on play. In terms of reputation they might be known as long or short or indeed tough, easy, featureless, hilly, fun, holiday golf, quirky etc. but they won't be "known" as a par 72 even if it is stated on the website.
To the ordinary golfer I really don't think the actual par and yardage register that much. The reason for that is probably historical in that with so many old courses with varying yardages and pars, the standard 72 and 7000 isn't as established as perhaps it is elsewhere, but also I think when you have such varying playing conditions between types of courses, and the weather on any given day, they can be pretty meaningless stats. For example play Troon on a relatively benign day when the course is running and you might think it a breeze while you play Kilspindie when its relatively soft under foot and the wind is blowing you off your feet and you might think it a brute.
Niall
-
Out of interest with a 7,000/72 combo, in very general terms what would be the proportion (in %) of teeing areas for say the back men's, the men's white's, the men's yellow's and the reds?
Atb
I think it would vary a lot and % of tee space is almost not applicable because a 250 squared metred tee offers about 10 times the usuable space of a 50 metred tee. If I am designing with 4 sets, I would probably go;
100 squared metres for very back championship tees
200 squared metres for normal White tees
300 squared metres for normal Yellow tee of the day
100 squared metres for ladies tees.
Par 3 holes I would maybe double the Whites and Yellows.
I might also have more than 4 tees at some holes to allow options, if there were good spots or useful alternatives.
-
Thanks for these details Adrian.
Changing tack a little, if 7,000/72 is a marketing target for men, I wonder what the equivalent marketing target yardage/par is for women or is the thought process maybe different?
Atb
-
As a matter of interest, how many UK gca'ers know the yardages of their home course without having to look them up ?
Niall
-
Adrian
I guess my main point is that when the main marketing push for a course is 7000/72 then it doesn't bode well because these are such superficial (I would actually argue meaningless and perhaps even negative measurements of quality) measurements of quality.
This is the point I was trying to make, more neatly packaged by Sean. The fallback to 7000/72 is almost an admission that you don't have a lot else going for you. Yes, the world needs ditch-diggers, too -- I'm not trying to demean the average course -- but it costs the golf world a lot when every ditch-digger has to pretend he's creating a "championship" course. And you are not doing yourself a favor by identifying with the ditch-diggers.
-
Thanks for these details Adrian.
Changing tack a little, if 7,000/72 is a marketing target for men, I wonder what the equivalent marketing target yardage/par is for women or is the thought process maybe different?
Atb
Yes different thought process it is more, a great menu with plenty of healthy fish options and salads and good length mirrors and vanity units to apply their make up. Separate shower cubicles are also high on the list.
-
Thanks for these details Adrian.
Changing tack a little, if 7,000/72 is a marketing target for men, I wonder what the equivalent marketing target yardage/par is for women or is the thought process maybe different?
Atb
Yes different thought process it is more, a great menu with plenty of healthy fish options and salads and good length mirrors and vanity units to apply their make up. Separate shower cubicles are also high on the list.
😊.....I was wondering!
Atb